Literature DB >> 22529761

Transparency matters: Kaiser Permanente's National Guideline Program methodological processes.

Carrie Davino-Ramaya1, L Kendall Krause, Craig W Robbins, Jeffrey S Harris, Marguerite Koster, Wiley Chan, Gladys I Tom.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The practice-guideline process of collecting, critically appraising, and synthesizing available evidence, then developing expert panel recommendations based on appraised evidence, makes it possible to provide high-quality care for patients. Unwanted variability in the quality and rigor of evidence summaries and Clinical Practice Guidelines has been a long-standing challenge for clinicians seeking evidence-based guidance to support patient care decisions.
METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of stakeholders, with representation from all eight Kaiser Permanente Regions, is responsible for creating National Guidelines. Conducting high-quality systematic reviews and creating clinical guidelines are time-, labor-, and resource-intensive processes, which raises challenges for an organization striving to balance rigor with efficiency. For these reasons, the National Guideline Program elected to allow for the identification, assessment, and possible adoption of existing evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews using the ADAPTE; Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation; Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR); and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) frameworks. If no acceptable external guidelines are identified, the Guideline Development Team then systematically searches for relevant high-quality systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and original studies. Existing systematic reviews are assessed for quality using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (the AMSTAR systematic review checklist). STUDY APPRAISAL: Following the screening and selection process, the included studies (the "body of evidence") are critically appraised for quality, using the GRADE methodology, which focuses on four key factors that must be considered when assigning strength to a recommendation: balance between desirable and undesirable effects, quality of evidence, values and preferences, and cost. The evidence is then used to create preliminary clinical recommendations. The strength of these recommendations is graded to reflect the extent to which a guideline panel is confident that the desirable effects of an intervention outweigh undesirable effects (or vice versa) across the range of patients for whom the recommendation is intended. DISSEMINATION: The Care Management Institute disseminates all KP national guidelines to its eight Regions via postings on its Clinical Library Intranet site, a Web-based internal information resource.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22529761      PMCID: PMC3327114          DOI: 10.7812/TPP/11-134

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perm J        ISSN: 1552-5767


  7 in total

1.  Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

Authors:  David Atkins; Dana Best; Peter A Briss; Martin Eccles; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Signe Flottorp; Gordon H Guyatt; Robin T Harbour; Margaret C Haugh; David Henry; Suzanne Hill; Roman Jaeschke; Gillian Leng; Alessandro Liberati; Nicola Magrini; James Mason; Philippa Middleton; Jacek Mrukowicz; Dianne O'Connell; Andrew D Oxman; Bob Phillips; Holger J Schünemann; Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer; Helena Varonen; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Stephanie Zaza
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-06-19

Review 2.  AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care.

Authors:  Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Francoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Jeremy Grimshaw; Steven E Hanna; Peter Littlejohns; Julie Makarski; Louise Zitzelsberger
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-07-05       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Adding value to evidence-based clinical guidelines.

Authors:  Patrick J O'Connor
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-08-10       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Going from evidence to recommendations.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Gunn E Vist; Alessandro Liberati; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-05-10

5.  Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't.

Authors:  D L Sackett; W M Rosenberg; J A Gray; R B Haynes; W S Richardson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-01-13

6.  Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Beverley J Shea; Jeremy M Grimshaw; George A Wells; Maarten Boers; Neil Andersson; Candyce Hamel; Ashley C Porter; Peter Tugwell; David Moher; Lex M Bouter
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2007-02-15       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Development, feasibility and performance of a health risk appraisal questionnaire for older persons.

Authors:  Andreas E Stuck; Kalpa Kharicha; Ulrike Dapp; Jennifer Anders; Wolfgang von Renteln-Kruse; Hans Peter Meier-Baumgartner; Danielle Harari; Cameron G Swift; Katja Ivanova; Matthias Egger; Gerhard Gillmann; Jerilyn Higa; John C Beck; Steve Iliffe
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2007-01-11       Impact factor: 4.615

  7 in total
  8 in total

Review 1.  Process-Based Treatment of Diabetes in Kaiser Permanente Southern California: How to Make Diabetes Care "Complete".

Authors:  John P Martin; Natalie Aboubechara
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 4.810

2.  Racial and ethnic disparities in care for health system-affiliated physician organizations and non-affiliated physician organizations.

Authors:  Justin W Timbie; Ashley M Kranz; Maria DeYoreo; Blen Eshete-Roesler; Marc N Elliott; José J Escarce; Mark E Totten; Cheryl L Damberg
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Population Care Management and Team-Based Approach to Reduce Racial Disparities among African Americans/Blacks with Hypertension.

Authors:  Rowena E Bartolome; Agnes Chen; Joel Handler; Sharon Takeda Platt; Bernice Gould
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2016

4.  Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise.

Authors:  Holger J Schünemann; Wojtek Wiercioch; Itziar Etxeandia; Maicon Falavigna; Nancy Santesso; Reem Mustafa; Matthew Ventresca; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Kaja-Triin Laisaar; Sérgio Kowalski; Tejan Baldeh; Yuan Zhang; Ulla Raid; Ignacio Neumann; Susan L Norris; Judith Thornton; Robin Harbour; Shaun Treweek; Gordon Guyatt; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Marge Reinap; Jan Brozek; Andrew Oxman; Elie A Akl
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2013-12-16       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Policies on Conflicts of Interest in Health Care Guideline Development: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Authors:  Cristina Morciano; Vittorio Basevi; Carla Faralli; Michele Hilton Boon; Sabina Tonon; Domenica Taruscio
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Effectiveness of a new health care organization model in primary care for chronic cardiovascular disease patients based on a multifactorial intervention: the PROPRESE randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Domingo Orozco-Beltran; Esther Ruescas-Escolano; Ana Isabel Navarro-Palazón; Alberto Cordero; María Gaubert-Tortosa; Jorge Navarro-Perez; Concepción Carratalá-Munuera; Salvador Pertusa-Martínez; Enrique Soler-Bahilo; Francisco Brotons-Muntó; Jose Bort-Cubero; Miguel Angel Nuñez-Martinez; Vicente Bertomeu-Martinez; Vicente Francisco Gil-Guillen
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-08-02       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  Knowledge translation: a case study on pneumonia research and clinical guidelines in a low- income country.

Authors:  Sophie Goyet; Hubert Barennes; Therese Libourel; Johan van Griensven; Roger Frutos; Arnaud Tarantola
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 7.327

8.  Defining key questions for clinical practice guidelines: a novel approach for developing clinically relevant questions.

Authors:  Samantha Chakraborty; Bianca Brijnath; Jacinta Dermentzis; Danielle Mazza
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2020-09-29
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.